Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAI SINGH versus P.A. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vijai Singh v. P.A. & Others - WRIT - C No. 5043 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 12960 (26 July 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Judgment reserved on 05.07.2007)

(Judgment delivered on 26.07.2007)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5043 of 2001

Vijai Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority, U.P. Agra and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

At the time of arguments, no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondent, hence only the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner were heard.

This writ petition is directed against award dated 18.12.1999 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Agra in adjudication case No.56 of 1997.

The matter, which was referred to the Labour Court, was as to whether action of the employer respondent No.1, Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh, terminating the services of its employee petitioner through order dated 30.07.1994 was valid or not.

The petitioner was given charge-sheet on 06.06.1987 containing the charge to the effect that on 23.04.1983, while he was performing duty as conductor in a bus of the employer, he was found carrying 63 passengers without ticket on surprise inspection and that there were 75 passengers in the bus but entry of no ticket had been made on the 'Way Bill' and that the workman-conductor snatched the 'Way Bill' from the hands of the checking officer, in the result it was torn and after snatching that, conductor made some entries in the 'Way Bill', still no entry was made in respect of 21 passengers. The other allegation was that in the night of 26/27th January, 1984, 35 passengers had not been issued tickets, however when the bus was stopped by the checking party, entries were quickly made in the 'Way Bill' still two passengers remained without ticket. The third incident occurred on 06.01.1985, it was found that 650 Kg. match-boxes were being carried against the rules. On two other dates, also un-booked luggage was found in the bus, in which petitioner was performing duty of conductor. Thereafter in the domestic enquiry, charges No.1, 4 & 5 were found proved against petitioner and dismissal order was passed.

The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic enquiry. In Para-8 of the award, it is mentioned that the workman admitted in the cross-examination that he had not made any request for taking assistance of any other employee and that he had not given any application. He further admitted that twice he participated in the enquiry. The Labour Court further mentioned that the workman did not raise any such objection that he had not been provided opportunity of adducing evidence. The Labour Court further held that it could not be pointed out on behalf of the workman that there was any irregularity in the domestic enquiry or principles of natural justice were not followed therein. Ultimately, Labour Court held that dismissal order was quite alright.

At the first hearing of this writ petition, an order was passed on 12.02.2001 recording that in Para-13 of the writ petition, it was stated that petitioner was not supplied relevant material documents, however no details had been given. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for and was granted two weeks' time to file supplementary affidavit annexing therewith copy of application filed by him before Enquiry Officer demanding the documents and also the order passed thereupon. Thereafter, supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner along with listing application dated 19.08.2001. Along with supplementary affidavit as Annexure-1 & 2, copies of two applications have been filed asking for some documents. On the margin of the application, it is noted that it was received on 28.02.1989. Annexure-2 is copy of another application bearing date as 19.05.1990 and also showing that it was received on 19.05.1990 requesting that enquiry must be got conducted by/ through some other officer and not by panel Enquiry Officer.

Copy of written statement filed by petitioner before Labour Court has been annexed as Annexure-VII along with the writ petition. No such grievance was made by the petitioner before the Labour Court in his written statement. It has also not been shown that how those documents were relevant. In Para-8 of the award, it is clearly mentioned that workman did not raise any objection regarding non-supply of documents. As in his written statement before Labour Court petitioner did not state that he ha demanded any document from inquiry officer, hence it cannot be believed that any such application as annexed with the aforesaid supplementary affidavit was in fact filed.

Accordingly, the version, that some documents were not supplied, cannot be accepted. Moreover, their relevance has not been pointed out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (6) SCC 260 "T.D. Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and others." In the said authority, it was mentioned that if dismissal order is passed on the ground different from the grounds mentioned in the charge-sheet, then it is bad and principles of natural justice should be followed. Learned counsel has further cited an authority of this Court reported in Chandan Singh Rathi Vs. D.M., 2002 (48) ALR 392, wherein it was held that non-supply of documents vitiated the departmental proceedings. In the instant case, firstly no such grievance was made before the Labour Court, secondly it has not been shown that how the documents asked for were relevant. If this question had been raised before the Labour Court, then Labour Court could record the finding as to whether such documents were actually asked for or not.

Accordingly, there is no error in the impugned award, writ petition lacks merit, hence it is dismissed.

Date:26.07.2007

NLY


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.